[Siderite]

Awaywego wrote:

The BBC could have decided at this time to freshen it up and get rid of lineker, shearer and wright instead of leaving them looking like right twats.The same as sky did with le tissier Thompson and Nicholas but when they got sacked wright didn’t show solidarity,le tissiers calling him out now over it.

Wright doesn’t work for Sky. What was he supposed to do? Walk out of a job he didn’t have? That wasn’t due to issues over free speech either, so not really analogous.

[Siderite]

If the BBC was left wing in its bias, as alleged, I’d expect there to be more focus on Braverman’s plans instead.

[Siderite]

It was so frustrating at a time when I was trying to argue against Corbyn as someone who leans to the centre. It was hard to get taken seriously, because online people would assume I meant I was like Rubin. If he is going to hold such beliefs fine, but presenting himself as a centrist and a true liberal, when it was clear he wasn’t, and arguing against such would have his fans calling me a ‘regressive leftist’ was dishonest. He has guru tendencies in that his fans treat critique as a personal attack and respond with character judgements.

He was too dumb, boring and uncharismatic to climb to larger fame in the manner of Peterson, Brand or Neil Oliver. I remember him arguing against government intervention on environmental issues because we don’t need that; individuals can shame polluters into good behaviour by posting pictures on snapchat of pollution by big industry.

That’s the infuriating thing. He clearly isn’t an old school centrist, he is a conservative, and such pretending to be otherwise is dishonest and that grates. His opinions are poorly thought; the snapchat solution he presented was mind boggling in its idiocy from failing to understand how pictures cannot get an idea of pollution really (a lot of it is hidden, it says nothing of concentrations) and won’t stop businesses with bad practice. And his fans treated measured criticism of these stupid ideas as angry tantrum throwing of lefties who couldn’t take another opinion. No, I just think is ideas are dumb and harmful, but he’s welcome to his dumb ideas. The ‘very sensible’ people who treated critique of him and claims as him not being a liberal as some hard left smears are silent now he’s openly supporting Trump and DeSantis, making Russian apologism and anti-vaxx woo. On top of this he is so cringeworthy. Check out his stand up routine!

[Siderite]

*sighs*

[Siderite]

The only people who count, obviously. The rest of us don’t matter in opinion.

[Siderite]

I suspect a lot was about curiosity. It doesn’t say a lot about preference. Polls indicate most think the BBC were wrong to suspend Linekar.

1 user thanked author for this post.

TwoWrights

[Siderite]

I don’t think Bucks was wrong when saying crass comparisons with the Nazis shows a huge misunderstanding of political extremism, and it is not befitting.

[Siderite]

I don’t like the Tories, but 64’s comparison to the Nazis is OTT. The Nazis were far more extreme in many of the examples given, and went far beyond with genocidal rhetoric.

2 users thanked author for this post.

TwoWrights, Just Iron

[Siderite]

Of course there is a line. I don’t think Linekar’s crosses it because it was a vulgar comparison.

[Siderite]

Lord Kitchener wrote:

I saw the vid of him getting into that car and reiterating what he said. To say that our government, even though they are Tories, are like the Third Reich, is an insult to millions of victims from WW2.

Free speech includes the right to make stupid comments.

[Siderite]

I thought free speech was for everyone, including the famous.

1 user thanked author for this post.

open hearth iron

[Siderite]

“Not just because of dick heads using it as a political platform”

Linekar didn’t use the show as a political platform in my opinion, as he didn’t air them on the show. Then I would have an issue.

5 users thanked author for this post.

BobbyGmeister, open hearth iron, Just Iron, Iron-awe, Northumbiron

[Siderite]

I think it’s obvious they have a liberal slant, but they are self-deprecating and remind it’s based on their own opinions. Also, at the end of the latest one they said they want to dig into some more left leaning ones this year (they have done some, like Contrapoints).

I am no fan of Murray or Peterson, less familiar with Pageau. However, they both have more for them than a shallow and smug prat like Rubin. Yes, maybe harsh language, but I just don’t like the guy. I have similar opinions for lefties and centrists who irritate me, and I will be as fair as possible when they are right.

As for time, I usually have it on when doing mundane work or some mundane task.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Just Iron

[Siderite]

Shortly after naming him as on of my top 3 irritating people Rubin gets decoded:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dave-rubin-a-pointless-partisan-pundit/id1531266667?i=1000603235948

I wonder if he’s still prattling on about how Glenn Beck, Paul Joseph Watson, Stefan Molyneux and Katie Hopkins are part of a new political centre? I am pleased he’s not pretending to be a liberal anymore, at least. I think what irritated me about him was that I became more aware of him was when Corbyn had just become Labour leader and I was trying to argue with Corbynites, declaring themselves as quite centrist, that they were bad elements of the left. Corbynites were also saying those of us who called us centrist were really right wing, so when Rubin comes along claiming to be a centrist while apologising for and dressing up right wing rhetoric was incredibly frustrating.

[Siderite]

Just Iron wrote:

No problem. We definitely disagree on this subject … and I recognise that it is one of several that can be inflammatory nowadays.
A bit intrigued to find that you might place a value on something in terms of it being ‘sacred.’ I wonder if we share the same definition.

We probably do have a different definition to be fair, and it’s a matter of communicative breakdown too! :-)

1 user thanked author for this post.

Just Iron

[Siderite]

It reminds me to maybe not post in the heat of the moment. I just don’t like the insinuation that I wouldn’t find life sacred. I think that’s a bit simplistic, and I don’t find the life argument to be the best, because what is life? I think sentience and weighing of such to be a more relevant outcome here. I won’t go further, because I fear bpg would just misrepresent me and it could spiral.

[Siderite]

A coat he wore. Complaining about the BBC misrepresenting Corbyn as a pastiche commie because he wore clothes he typically wore is just silly.

[Siderite]

Why did they do it for Gavin Williamson on the same show if that was the agenda?

The tie stuff for Remembrance Day was daft outrage from the right. Worrying about distortions from resolution and backdrops of the Kremlin, when it was used for people of differing parties, is silliness from the left.

[Siderite]

He wears that hat often, so it’s hardly unfair use. On its appearance any image editing expert says this:

“This, however, was not the result of Photoshopping or otherwise manipulating the image. It resulted from the fact that the screen on to which the image was projected is curved, meaning that the image as a whole appeared higher in relation to its width than it would on a flat surface.”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/may/11/bbc-rejects-complaints-newsnight-corbyn-russian

Yes, this is from the BBC complaints, but it’s a comment echoed by anyone with such knowldge.

They used the same backdrop for Gavin Williamson. Were they making out Gavin is a commie?

[Siderite]

When was Corbyn mocked up as Lenin? The BBC have made serious errors recently, but nonsense like that doesn’t help. If you mean the infamous image on Newsnight, they used the same background for a Tory and many editors said that the hat elongation is a natural symptom of editing to such a scale.

[Siderite]

I apologise if I came across overly harsh. The subject is an emotive one, but one overly simplified too and I saw such comments as a broad demonisation of your opponents.

I reacted with a counter-example of the harmful consequences for women in many US states because of such beliefs. I should reiterate that I don’t think every Christian will not care, I don’t want to state you don’t, but those with power and many who support do not signal to me that they do. If you don’t like that, fine. However, it’s the only interpretation I have given the repeated pattern when abortion is limited and policed, globally. People are free to believe what they want, but we have to accept our beliefs and actions will cause others to have negative opinions.

I can say the same for myself, and I realise my pro-choice mindset will have some people make negative opinions of me. So be it, but I don’t want to be made out it’s because of a lack of care for life. I find that overly simplistic.

[Siderite]

I should add that if you’re going to make out others have no value on life, which is your right, you have to expect disagreement, even if coarse. Especially when their own beliefs have led to severe consequences. Having a negative judgement on that makes me nasty and uncharitable, but the opposite isn’t true for such judgements on those on my ‘side’ of the debate?

This is why I said it’s complex. Maybe I should have gone into why to clarify it if anything.

[Siderite]

As opposed to you making out anyone on the other side doesn’t care about life? We’re supposed to sit back and take that while I see the consequences of their actions, and simplistic dismissals of my views as murderous or lacking in care for life. Yet calling out the Christian right harming women is not on, because it might hurt feelings, while their actions harm lives.

Of course I am speaking as a generalisation, and I am not going to say every anti-choicer doesn’t care, but it’s a trait as a whole. Otherwise we wouldn’t have the situation where many on the Christian right don’t care.

As for the smug last comment, I could say the same for your last sentence in your original comment, because I haven’t seen that from you on this subject.

[Siderite]

I am sure the right wing football fans in your analogy who are using that are doing so to highlight racism in a way that book was. :-S

[Siderite]

You’d be hard pressed making an evidence based argument to the contrary.

[Siderite]

Awaywego wrote:

Sugar was a politician Neil a political presenter and I would expect them to make political comments, Lineker is a football presenter and pundit and expect him to make comments on the footy, sure Kier will be on the phone soon offering him a job or candidacy.

They are ALL BBC staff and bound to impartiality. Political figures on the BBC should be more stringent, because we get the news agenda from them. I am not saying they have broken such, but to place more weight on those who don’t have the same influence is daft.

[Siderite]

I am not going into the complex issue of this again. The situation is complex and Christians using their self-righteousness to simplify a complex issue and make out that opponents are callous murderers get little sympathy from me when their actions time and time again neglect women. As we are seeing now in some States where women are treated like criminals or have their life at risk for a miscarriage, and the Christians show little care.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe, Heath

[Siderite]

The only time I can think of that involves you stepping beyond the line is when you called Abbott a baboon. All the other times you aired comments I disagreed with has not made me think they should be removed. You are free to spout as much waffle as you want, and neither your comments here or Linekar’s go beyond the line for me.

2 users thanked author for this post.

bartonscorpion, Heath

[Siderite]

Under no circumstances is “ain’t no black on the Union Jack” not a racist comment.

4 users thanked author for this post.

lesgeo, Iron-awe, Northumbiron, TwoWrights

[Siderite]

Yes, racist comments are definitly the same as supporting NHS staff on strike. :-S

[Author]

Posts